Re: Man of the People : Thu Jan 09, 2020 4:13 pm  

King Street Cat wrote:

Brexit shmexit. Boris said he would 'get Brexit done' by Jan 31. Or was he lying, again?

I dont think that the first part of "getting Brexit done" (by 31st Jan) is in too much doubt - the free trade deal may not be quite so straight forward and my personal opinion is that we will leave with "no deal" at the end of the year.
Despite the comparable trade between the EU27 and the UK, I just dont think that the EU can afford to let us have a free trade arrangement AND for the UK to strike it's own trade deals elsewhere.
Even if it costs them, I believe that the UK cant be left with the best of both worlds - allowing "us" to take advantage of the benefits of membership, with the added benefits of independence.
I dont think that any other nation has such a preferential position and it would be a dangerous precedent for them to set.
It would be a decent effort if Boris and his team could secure a FTA, without any kind of contribution.

Re: Man of the People : Thu Jan 09, 2020 4:14 pm  

What does he need to answer questions on Brexit because he said it is finished. I did not want to leave and I believe it will be a disaster but I accept that we will leave on the 31st. Brexit will take its course this is unavoidable therefore any personal views are now irrelevant. The new Labour leader will have over 4 years to define their stance and produce a manifesto that reflects the country at that time.
I agree that Starmer does come with baggage from his time as a public prosecutor but Johnson has an history of telling lies, wasting public money and the country will have a better understanding of the real Boris and he won’t be able to fight it on Brexit.

Re: Man of the People : Thu Jan 09, 2020 7:52 pm  

Scarlet Pimpernell wrote:

What does he need to answer questions on Brexit because he said it is finished. I did not want to leave and I believe it will be a disaster but I accept that we will leave on the 31st. Brexit will take its course this is unavoidable therefore any personal views are now irrelevant. The new Labour leader will have over 4 years to define their stance and produce a manifesto that reflects the country at that time.
I agree that Starmer does come with baggage from his time as a public prosecutor but Johnson has an history of telling lies, wasting public money and the country will have a better understanding of the real Boris and he won’t be able to fight it on Brexit.

Wasting public money?

Re: Man of the People : Thu Jan 09, 2020 8:22 pm  

Water cannons, garden bridge just to name two.

Re: Man of the People : Thu Jan 09, 2020 8:55 pm  

The new Routemaster bus.

Re: Man of the People : Thu Jan 09, 2020 11:39 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

I just dont think that the EU can afford to let us have a free trade arrangement AND for the UK to strike it's own trade deals elsewhere.
Even if it costs them, I believe that the UK cant be left with the best of both worlds - allowing "us" to take advantage of the benefits of membership, with the added benefits of independence.

Exactly. You get 'frictionless trade' when the other side knows that the products sold in their own country, meet their standards. When the standards are different you have to go through a process to verify what you are selling meets the receiving country's standards.

Currently UK and EU standards are aligned so stuff can go from the UK to the EU without checks. Stuff coming in to the EU from India needs to go through checks.

The issue about signing trade deals elsewhere isn't that the EU cares who the UK signs trade deals with (unlike the US, who insists its trade partners get their approval first before signing trade deals with other countries....). It's the constraints that the EU deal puts on it. If the UK wants a comprehensive trade deal with minimal frictions, it will need to agree to align rules in a lot of sectors. But then if you have aligned on food, and then the US wants the UK to lower its food standards to allow in US food, the UK wouldn't be free to change it's standards because it's already agreed to minimums with the EU. Hence the US could lose interest.

On the other hand, the UK could prioritise the US, lower its food standards, but then the EU will put much higher check requirements on food coming from the UK to the EU.

wrencat1873 wrote:

I dont think that any other nation has such a preferential position and it would be a dangerous precedent for them to set.

And if we end up exiting with no deal, they will be required under WTO rules to offer the same terms of trade to the UK that it does to any country which which it doesn't have a trade deal. If they said we'll make the processes easier for the UK than for India, then India could sue them for discriminatory treatment. The only way the EU will be allowed to trade with the UK on terms other than its (fairly brutal and complex) terms with countries that doesn't have a trade deal with (referred to as 'third countries' in the jargon you might hear on the news) is to have a formal and comprehensive trade agreement with the UK.

Which is a big hard barrel to put the UK over if Boris starts trying to bluff about lets go for no deal. All that talk that some of the Brexiters used to say about 'no deal means lots of little bespoke deals' would be prohibited under the WTO.

Re: Man of the People : Fri Jan 10, 2020 8:45 am  

sally cinnamon wrote:

Exactly. You get 'frictionless trade' when the other side knows that the products sold in their own country, meet their standards. When the standards are different you have to go through a process to verify what you are selling meets the receiving country's standards.

Currently UK and EU standards are aligned so stuff can go from the UK to the EU without checks. Stuff coming in to the EU from India needs to go through checks.

The issue about signing trade deals elsewhere isn't that the EU cares who the UK signs trade deals with (unlike the US, who insists its trade partners get their approval first before signing trade deals with other countries....). It's the constraints that the EU deal puts on it. If the UK wants a comprehensive trade deal with minimal frictions, it will need to agree to align rules in a lot of sectors. But then if you have aligned on food, and then the US wants the UK to lower its food standards to allow in US food, the UK wouldn't be free to change it's standards because it's already agreed to minimums with the EU. Hence the US could lose interest.

On the other hand, the UK could prioritise the US, lower its food standards, but then the EU will put much higher check requirements on food coming from the UK to the EU.

And if we end up exiting with no deal, they will be required under WTO rules to offer the same terms of trade to the UK that it does to any country which which it doesn't have a trade deal. If they said we'll make the processes easier for the UK than for India, then India could sue them for discriminatory treatment. The only way the EU will be allowed to trade with the UK on terms other than its (fairly brutal and complex) terms with countries that doesn't have a trade deal with (referred to as 'third countries' in the jargon you might hear on the news) is to have a formal and comprehensive trade agreement with the UK.

Which is a big hard barrel to put the UK over if Boris starts trying to bluff about lets go for no deal. All that talk that some of the Brexiters used to say about 'no deal means lots of little bespoke deals' would be prohibited under the WTO.

I agree with most of what you have said and you're right about alignment.
However, even if our "standards" are aligned, I just dont see that they (the EU) can offer any kind of free trade deal.
If they were to do this, there would be other nations wanting out.

The only way that we can achieve a FTA is by offering a contribution and that seems rather unlikely.

Despite Boris's deal being "oven ready" and regardless of how often he spouts his well practiced one liners, the EU are nothing like as gullible as the British electorate.
There is one outcome here and it will be no deal at the end of the year.

Re: Man of the People : Fri Jan 10, 2020 10:11 am  

wrencat1873 wrote:

I agree with most of what you have said and you're right about alignment.
However, even if our "standards" are aligned, I just dont see that they (the EU) can offer any kind of free trade deal.
If they were to do this, there would be other nations wanting out.

The only way that we can achieve a FTA is by offering a contribution and that seems rather unlikely.

Despite Boris's deal being "oven ready" and regardless of how often he spouts his well practiced one liners, the EU are nothing like as gullible as the British electorate.
There is one outcome here and it will be no deal at the end of the year.

The only nations wanting out would surely be those who contribute financially to the EU e.g. Germany, France - there is no way they are going to abandon the EU - so that leaves Italy and Netherlands?

I agree it is going to be tough for the UK to negotiate no change without any financial contribution.

Re: Man of the People : Fri Jan 10, 2020 11:41 am  

We're back to the fairyland scenario in which the UK - or England at any rate - whilst members of the EU want to act as if they're not, and as non-members want to act as if they are; on that basis, I think WC is right and it'll be no-deal at the end of the year. Good luck to the Brexit cheerleaders when the reality of that scenario starts to bite.

Re: Man of the People : Fri Jan 10, 2020 12:26 pm  

bren2k wrote:

We're back to the fairyland scenario in which the UK - or England at any rate - whilst members of the EU want to act as if they're not, and as non-members want to act as if they are; on that basis, I think WC is right and it'll be no-deal at the end of the year. Good luck to the Brexit cheerleaders when the reality of that scenario starts to bite.

I agree - I don't think the outcomes will be anywhere as catastrophic as have been predicted - they never are. Business is a very resourceful animal it will cope with change it might be a bit painful to be begin with